Trade Cut

[Oberyn]

Yeah, unlike governments. Go back to school, bro.

Lol, libertarians. The only thing more naive and less in touch with reality than commies. Although, I am forgetting anarchists, they're even more ridiculous, both the capitalist and commie versions.

[Angantyr]

Noam Chomsky on modern misuse and misinterpretation of the term 'libertarian'

[Oberyn]

Well of course, the meanings of Republican and Democrat also have an uniquely American meaning, that isn't necessarily linked to the ideology that spawned the term. This is true in some other countries as well.

[Angantyr]

Yes. Wasn't directed at your post specifically Oberyn, but just as a general reminder that differences in political symbolism can make international discussion difficult.

[MrShine]

Getting to 31 then being able to simply sell the loom on the market is a really good addition for real newbs, they will generally end up more wealthy sooner, even if there is a 5% tax. The price will go up a bit to cover the tax but prices will generally not rise as quickly as before imo

The ability to buy/sell loom points directly on the market is great b/c it streamlines and secures, but noobs are still making 5% less by default.  If someone makes the mistake of looming something to +1 and then regretting it that's their fault, going from level 1 to 31 as a noob gives you plenty of time to read about selling looms on the forums.

The 5% tax is by far worse on less wealthy players because the margin for profit is much lower.  People who made their millions aren't getting it by playing 24/7 (although some are I suppose), most are making it from buying low & selling high, often getting 50k+ a pop.  Now however the ability to gain gold on the market is restricted and it will take far longer to see benefits.

(click to show/hide)

Example 1: Pre 5% Tax

Player A lists a +1 for 300k.
Player B buys the +1.  Player A gains 300k, Player B loses 300k.

Player B lists the +1 for 350k.
Player C buys the +1.  Player B gains 350k, a net profit of 50k.  Player C loses 350k.

Player C lists the +1 for 400k.
Player D buys the +1.  Player C gains 400k, a net profit of 50k.  Player D loses 400k.

Player A is now 300k richer (and 1 loom short)
Player B is now 50k richer
Player C is now 50k richer
Player D is now 400k poorer with a new loom.

Example 2: Current Market

Player A lists the +1 for 300k.  Player A loses 100 gold.
Player B buys the +1.  Player A gains 285k, Player B loses 300k.

Player B lists the +1 for 350k. Player B loses 100 gold.
Player C buys the +1.  Player B gains 332.5k, a profit of 32.5k.  Player C loses 350k.

Player C lists the +1 for 400k.  Player C loses 100 gold.
Player D buys the +1.  Player C gains 380k, a profit of 30k.  Player D loses 400k.

Player A is now 284,900k richer (and 1 less loom)
Player B is now 32,400 richer
Player C is now 29,900 richer
Player D is now 400k poorer with a new loom


This assumes Players B & C are ok with getting smaller profits.  If Players B & C wanted to keep their 50k gains Player D would end up paying the difference and would have to pay 440k.

TLDR The rich are already rich; the system just makes it harder for other people to get richer.

[Ronin]

I think the problem here is we do not see the full picture. By the full picture I mean the whole picture that we will have after a few more patches. Devs said that there will be more nerfs to the gold. This was just the first step.

Mrshine, I think the point here was to make the profits for player B and player C lower. That they were able to make money regularly, to be able to use expensive equipment all the time. This was to cut their profit so their money can begin to diminish.
Note: I wouldn't call Player A richer by the way. It's just that, he got quick cash or whatsoever.

[MrShine]

I think the problem here is we do not see the full picture. By the full picture I mean the whole picture that we will have after a few more patches. Devs said that there will be more nerfs to the gold. This was just the first step.

Mrshine, I think the point here was to make the profits for player B and player C lower. That they were able to make money regularly, to be able to use expensive equipment all the time. This was to cut their profit so their money can begin to diminish.
Note: I wouldn't call Player A richer by the way. It's just that, he got quick cash or whatsoever.

I have two responses:

1- Gold gained from trading looms is nothing compared to gold gained by selling loompoints.  If the point was to prevent people from wearing whatever they want it completely fails.  Even if I sold a loompoint for 300k I could wear pretty much whatever I wanted the entire gen and still have gold leftover.

2- Gear balance based on upkeep became trivial as soon as the marketplace came into existence.  I don't know why there is a push to try to balance based on repairs anymore, there is too great a disparity between the haves and the have nots that anything that is implemented to hurt the 'haves' will completely fuck over the 'have nots', and anything designed to be gentle to the 'have nots' will be completely trivial to the 'haves'.  Honestly it would be best if the devs simply dropped any hopes to balance based on repair cost... it was a bad system from the start tbh.

Why is there a war on the rich anyways?  Why exactly is it so bad that there is a lot of gold in the system? It's not like the poorer players are hurt by the rich having a lot of money, if anything more money in the system is GOOD for newer players to get over that original gold barrier.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

2- Gear balance based on upkeep became trivial as soon as the marketplace came into existence.  I don't know why there is a push to try to balance based on repairs anymore, there is too great a disparity between the haves and the have nots that anything that is implemented to hurt the 'haves' will completely fuck over the 'have nots', and anything designed to be gentle to the 'have nots' will be completely trivial to the 'haves'.  Honestly it would be best if the devs simply dropped any hopes to balance based on repair cost... it was a bad system from the start tbh.

1+! Now buff that fucking Dadao!!!

[ArchonAlarion]

Lol, libertarians. The only thing more naive and less in touch with reality than commies. Although, I am forgetting anarchists, they're even more ridiculous, both the capitalist and commie versions.

In time, all the fools will get their hats.

[Ronin]

I have two responses:

1- Gold gained from trading looms is nothing compared to gold gained by selling loompoints.  If the point was to prevent people from wearing whatever they want it completely fails.  Even if I sold a loompoint for 300k I could wear pretty much whatever I wanted the entire gen and still have gold leftover.

2- Gear balance based on upkeep became trivial as soon as the marketplace came into existence.  I don't know why there is a push to try to balance based on repairs anymore, there is too great a disparity between the haves and the have nots that anything that is implemented to hurt the 'haves' will completely fuck over the 'have nots', and anything designed to be gentle to the 'have nots' will be completely trivial to the 'haves'.  Honestly it would be best if the devs simply dropped any hopes to balance based on repair cost... it was a bad system from the start tbh.

Why is there a war on the rich anyways?  Why exactly is it so bad that there is a lot of gold in the system? It's not like the poorer players are hurt by the rich having a lot of money, if anything more money in the system is GOOD for newer players to get over that original gold barrier.

Then let me respond:
1- You are right. I personally have 3 mw items and over 1 million gold; and planning to go above level 30 as a horse archer. Since, I won't retire anymore I won't have any more loompoints to sell. So, I was trying to make money with trading. Because I know my gold will slowly diminish and I am looking ways to prevent this being happen. Since this might force me to use cheaper equipment from time to time (which will hardly happen still) I can see why devs want to put this system. Cutting the way of making easy money or encouraging people to retire to be able to wear expensive shit. As easily realized, it's far from being useful. But again, let me repeat myself we are not seeing the full picture we will have in the future. The devs said this is just a beginning, and more "cuts" will come (or am I seeing hallucinations?)

2-Can't agree more. As I have explained (what you all knew already), the current is still not fully effective to balance things out. Actually trying to make balance with the gold is fully effective. Millionaires are still have enough money to do what they want, it just becomes harder and harder for the low classes of calradia. But, let's not forget repairs and trade cuts actually do have some results in terms of statistics. Some people were forced to plan what gear should be using, while some older players remained untouched. Meaning that in a battle 30vs30, there won't be 20 knights per team, but only 3-4 ones. Meaning that, it was "macro" not "micro". After all, both teams do have same chance to win in principle (without a banner balance of course). Which is something I like that it was rewarding older, experienced and clever players. I know many people will not agree but I think, "macro" balance is better than "micro" balance. After all, it is possible to gain the upper hand in 1v1 but not in 30v30 (at least in principle).

[Torost]

An increased tax on trading will only foster "blackmarket" activities, more prone to scamming.

Thus the established traders with an already good rep will get even more action and better margins.

Add fancy novelty items as goldsinks, or a 4th heirloompoint for 10 million gold.

[GauisMarius]

Prices are being raised so players don't lose money due to the trade cut. Which is not good for buyers.

[Turboflex]

Prices are being raised so players don't lose money due to the trade cut. Which is not good for buyers.

then don't buy them..and prices will fall.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

then don't buy them..and prices will fall.

And you seriously think that's gonna happen?

[Turboflex]

RIght now sellers have raised prices on loompoints, mostly cuz surprisingly the supply hasn't really increased even with easier selling method, but I don't see prices of actual heirloom items going up. If anything they've dropped 5% cuz gross prices have stayed the same, but sellers are eating the 5% cut.